Here is an updated presentation about some of the most unusual pictures to come from the various Mars probes.

From NASA data you will see strong evidence of:

Large scale artificial structures

Alteration of Photo Colours

Surface Moisture (the Mars rovers have no water detectors - why?)

Fossils

I have made a 24-slide presentation, which I have converted to 3 PDF files, suitable for printing either in ordinary format or in booklet format. Anyone can look at this in only a few minutes and should logically deduce we are simply not being told the truth by NASA about Mars.

Please contact me for paper copies of the booklet, if you can 't make your own.

Several people have written to me suggesting this dome is the result of Plasma Discharges - as proposed in the Electric Universe Theory (which I think has a lot going for it) - as shown in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRV1e5_tB6Y&feature=youtu.be&t=1h20m52s . The problem for the EU explanation is that (a) The Dome is centrally placed in the crater and (2) It is highly
symmetric. Also, note the lack of plasma discharge features immediately around the dome.
It looks little or nothing like the other features shown in their Mars video. I therefore still contend this is an artificial structure - otherwise, why would Arizona University move it "out of the way" on their web page?
Finally, look at the other structures in the vicinity of the dome, as shown in
this video clip:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/video/Image%20Strip%20M01501228.wmv.

Additional point - look at the Avebury and Japan images and links below - do you think the features in Avebury and Japan were created by Plasma Discharge? :-)

Feedback on this page:

To: <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
>

Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 12:55 PM

Subject: Mars Anomalies - Photos and Booklet (with videos) response

Utter nonsense!

Your conclusions are all wrong.

Slide 3: blue/gray sky versus red sky.....have you ever played with photoshop? It's nothing more than playing with saturation! It's not a conspiracy, it's a matter of enhancing colors to view things in different light (pardon the pun)

Slide 4: Same thing. I can do that with any image. I can take an earth image and with just changing contrast/color in photoshop, I can make the sky red! So what is the point. Mars sky has some blue to it because there is water vapor and CO2 in the atmosphere. We know that duh. But for the most part, it has a color of butterscotch towards the red.

Slide 5: Same thing again.

Slide 6: You accuse NASA of falsifying imagery. These photos were taken with different spectral filters in order to enhance certain features. If you take a yellow filter and put it in front of any image, it will change the color perception of that image. You guys need to take a few classes in photography, light spectral analysis, additive colors and subtractive colors!

Slide 10: What are these? black igneous soils beneath lighter colored frost/soils. Wind has blown to expose them from lower soil horizons. You see a lot of this on earth as well.

Slide 11: Classic example of block faulting. This is so common on earth that it is often pictured in seismology textbooks.

Slide 14: Rills with wind blown sand dunes on the bottom. for closeup of the feature, take a look and Rover Opportunity imagesinside various craters. Same thing from a ground level view.

Slide 15: Crater within a crater. Hundreds of them on Mars/Moon/Mercury. What you are seeing is "NOT" a dome but sand dunes, again wind blown, on the bottom of the second crater. Same as slide 14

Slide 16: Same as slide 14. Try Google earth from directly overhead, then change your angle of view to a 20º oblique angle and notice how terrain features are totally different than you see from overhead. Same on Mars

Slide 17: Utterly ridiculous! Both images taken with different spectral filters. The express image showing the green "false color" is revealing the mineral hematite. You assume Chlorophyll because it's colored green. Your ignorance knows no bounds! Suggest another university class on remote sensing and imaging. Farmers use this process to identify problems with their crops. False color is used to enhance or reveal a particular thing you are looking for. All matter emits radiation in frequencies of light. One just has to adjust the filters in wavelengths of light to show anything you like. The image on the left most likely was taken with a filter at 490 nanometers.

Slide 18: Yes and no...There are many sedimentary layers on Mars. This image is taken at a sharp oblique angle such that if you had stepping stones in your garden set next to each other, lower the camera angle to near the ground, your photo would come out very similar. These are rock structures layed out much like a flagstone patio. It's just the camera angle

Slide 20: Not sure what that is either. There have been several images taken from both MERs, that reveal unknown items. Maybe just lighting, camera angles??? don't know.

Slide 21: Dry dusty sand? No it's too cold. Steve Squyres is correct, it's not mud either. The temperatures are anywhere from a -170º to a -20º. If there was permanent water, these wheel tracks would not exist because the water/soil would be frozen solid. What you are seeing is soil adhesion at very cold temperatures. Suggest a trip to Antarctica to see similar behaviours of soil in extremely cold climates. This image is taken early on in the program when we didn't understand the dynamics of soil. We have since found many of the answers.

Slide 22: Hematite Spherules. We call them blue berries! anyway, mineral hematite created by solution in water. Not sure what the process

is to make them round. Many opinions on that. As for the circle, nothing more than the mark made by the RAT tool on MER. It grinds the rock down so that the spectral analysis science can be made on the rock that hasn't been exposed to the atmosphere.

Slides 23 & 24: What do you make your conclusion upon? Did you make spectral analysis and determine that these exposed "fossils" are calcium carbonate? Jumping to conclusions here is misleading at most. These are hematite spherules miss shaped by erosional processes existing on mars. Namely wind blown. When data analysis was conducted on these rocks, they were hematite, not calcium carbonate.

In love and light,

CLD

(Response)

----- Original Message -----

From: "Andrew Johnson" <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
>

To: CLD and "Bellringer" <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
>

Thanks for your comments, which I will add to below. Before doing that, I might add that "my" slides (they're not really mine at all, as I'll explain below) have drawn some interesting attention, but you are the first to send comments.

-----Original Message-----

From: CLD

Sent: 29 May 2008 17:55

To:
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
; Bellringer

Subject: Mars Anomalies - Photos and Booklet (with videos) response

Utter nonsense!

There are people who disagree...

Your conclusions are all wrong.

Slide 3: blue/gray sky versus red sky.....have you ever played with photoshop? It's nothing more than playing with saturation! It's not a conspiracy, it's a matter of enhancing colors to view things in different light (pardon the pun)

This is not correct. It is impossible for blue light to show a red impression - this indicates colour substitution - very clearly. Besides, this conclusion is not just drawn by me - it is also alluded to by Holger senberg, Sir Charles Schultz - you can find these analyses yourself.

Slide 4: Same thing. I can do that with any image. I can take an earth image and with just changing contrast/color in photoshop, I can

make the sky red! So what is the point. Mars sky has some blue to it because there is water vapor and CO2 in the atmosphere. We know that duh. But for the most part, it has a color of butterscotch towards the red.

No, I disagree - Mars is almost exclusively shown as having a red sky (in normal light) - you will see the odd viking photo, say taken at sunset, where they sometimes show different colours.

Slide 5: Same thing again.

Slide 6: You accuse NASA of falsifying imagery. These photos were taken with different spectral filters in order to enhance certain features. If you take a yellow filter and put it in front of any image, it will change the color perception of that image. You guys need to take a few classes in photography, light spectral analysis, additive colors and

subtractive colors!

I know about those things - and if you'd studied the other linked material, this should've given you the realisation that I do. I studied Physics to degree level, so understand most of the basic principles of photography, spectroscopy and basic optics and colour. Also refer to the websites listed - Dr Levin designed the Viking Lander labelled release experiment. Do you think he needs to take lessons in Physics too? Have a read....

Slide 10: What are these? black igneous soils beneath lighter colored frost/soils. Wind has blown to expose them from lower soil horizons. You see a lot of this on earth as well.

You could be right... I described them as "strange blotches" - that's all. I

see you skipped over slide 9... interesting.

Slide 11: Classic example of block faulting. This is so common on earth that it is often pictured in seismology textbooks.

n.

Great - you could be right. All I posted was the Mariner 9 DAS image and its description... it isn't my descriptio

Slide 14: Rills with wind blown sand dunes on the bottom. for closeup of the feature, take a look and Rover Opportunity images inside various craters. Same thing from a ground level view.

Ahh yes - of course - what about slides 12 and 13 - you skipped over those. I am well aware of what Phil Plait thinks of the tubes and I include his remarks in my longer presentation on Google video.

Crater within a crater. Hundreds of them on Mars/Moon/Mercury. What you are seeing is "NOT" a dome but sand dunes, again wind blown, on the bottom of the second crater. Same as slide 14

Slide 15:

Good one - OK - when I asked geologists about this image, they wouldn't really comment (included in longer presentation). I suggest you access the 2 different versions of this image on USGS and MSSS (look at the linked article to find links). The ribbing would be? The tubular section would be? You have explained none of the intricate features of this image.

Slide 16: Same as slide 14. Try Google earth from directly overhead, then change your angle of view to a 20º oblique angle and notice how terrain features are totally different than you see from overhead. Same on Mars

Yes... of course.... so what is this terrain on Mars explained by? Did you look at the large number of anomalies on image strip M1501228 and check the original NASA data as I suggested?

Slide 17: Utterly ridiculous! Both images taken with different spectral filters. The express image showing the green "false color" is

colored green. Your ignorance knows no bounds! Suggest another university class on remote sensing and imaging. Farmers use thisprocess to identify problems with their crops. False color is used to enhance or reveal a particular thing you are looking for. All matter emits radiation in frequencies of light. One just has to adjust the filters in wavelengths of light to show anything you like. The image on he left most likely was taken with a filter at 490 nanometers.

OK - well, I am quoting Richard Hoagland - and I am very intrigued by the green patches whatever their cause....

Yes and no...There are many sedimentary layers on Mars. This image is taken at a sharp oblique angle such that if you had stepping stones in your garden set next to each other, lower the camera angle to near the ground, your photo would come out very similar. These are rock structures layed out much like a flagstone patio. It's just the camera angle

Slide 18:

Of course - I presume that slide 12 (which you skipped over) is purely a camera angle issue... sure...

I was interested in slide 18 for the colour balance as much as the rock formation.

Not sure what that is either. There have been several images taken from both MERs, that reveal unknown items. Maybe just lighting, camera angles??? don't know.

Slide 20:

Ah well, there you go... slide 19 would be...??

Slide 21: Dry dusty sand? No it's too cold. Steve Squyres is correct, it's not mud either. The temperatures are anywhere from a -170º to a -20º. If there was permanent water, these wheel tracks would not exist because the water/soil would be frozen solid. What you are seeing is soil adhesion at very cold temperatures. Suggest a trip to Antarctica to see similar behaviours of soil in extremely cold climates. This image is taken early on in the program when we didn't understand the dynamics of soil. We have since found many of the answers.

Well, if you look hard, you'll find data that contradicts this too. Also I recommend you study Sir Charles Schultz website for his studies on liquid water on Mars. He's got more evidence (so why not write to him - he used to work for Martin Marietta Airspace and is therefore likely more qualified

Slide 22: Hematite Spherules. We call them blue berries! anyway, mineral hematite created by solution in water. Not sure what the process is to make them round. Many opinions on that. As for the circle, nothing more than the mark made by the RAT tool on MER. It grinds the rock down so that the spectral analysis science can be made on the rockthat hasn't been exposed to the atmosphere.

What do you make your conclusion upon? Did you make spectral analysis and determine that these exposed "fossils" are calcium carbonate? Jumping to conclusions here is misleading at most. These are hematite spherules miss shaped by erosional processes existing on mars. Namely wind blown. When data analysis was conducted on these rocks, they were hematite, not calcium carbonate.

Slides 23 & 24:

Ummm - I base it on the clear shapes seen, the studies of Charles Schultz and the fact that slides like 12 and 19 strongly suggest life is or was on Mars. I also base it on an overall picture I have come to understand as being far more complicated than that promoted by the straight jacketed thinking within academia. I add to it testimony of people like Donna Hare twho said she would take an oath before congress that NASA airbrush anomalies out of photos (or at least, they did when she worked there).

These conclusions, once made, do not allow me to skip over slides like 12, 13 and 19.

They also do not allow me to ignore the work (in a separate area) of my friend Dr Judy Wood (who has sued NIST's contractors for fraud) showing that the WTC was destroyed using some kind of directed energy weapon on 9/11. So, come on, how utterly ridiculous is that for a conclusion?

You now have 2 possible options - ignore what I have said, or continue to follow the evidence and find the truth, however grim it may expose itself as being.

In love and light,

My website is born out of love - in a search for light.... or rather searching for how far the boundaries of darkness stretch - and in my experience it's furhter than 99.99% of people want to accept or realise.....